MEpedia talk:Discussion and collaboration

Collaboration guidelines

User:Notjusttired I added a section to this page for guidelines on collaboration between editors, and moved this critical page to the guidelines category pending MEAction approval. Feel free to add your ideas: MEpedia:Discussion_and_collaboration#How_to_collaborate_with_other_editors
Pyrrhus (talk) 21:33, October 29, 2019 (EDT)

Can't think properly just now but I think when to use talk pages should be covered at the top. The image looks like a mistake because of where it is, would be better to have a heading above it. I can't remember, but have we said elsewhere about signing and indenting replies on the take pages? Or how to tag others? ~Njt (talk) 21:51, October 29, 2019 (EDT)

Njt I just cleaned up the image. This page already covers signing and indenting replies, and how to tag others. It just needs things like "how to edit by consensus", "how to coordinate large changes", "when it's acceptable to revert changes", "when it's acceptable to remove content". I'll go ahead and add section headings so we don't forget. No rush, of course.

Pyrrhus (talk) 22:11, October 29, 2019 (EDT)

 Done

Pyrrhus (talk) 15:38, December 31, 2019 (EST)

Suggestion

Looks good now! Thanks for clarifying the "Add topic".
Should we put a bullet point under "Formatting 101" saying "To start a new paragraph, just use 2 returns at the end of the line instead of one."
As a new user, I initially thought a single return was sufficient to create a new paragraph, so this may be helpful info?
Pyrrhus (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2019 (EST)

Ohh, I see. I had taken that out because indenting with a colon also suffices to start a new paragraph--but I see, your first comment here is an example of where someone might want a line break without indenting. FWIW, the syntax for a line break is <br>. My instinct is that that's the thing we should add in, since two returns creates double-spacing--I feel like the folks who do want to double-space their comments will figure out how? Canele (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2019 (EST)

Sounds good! I'll go add <br> to the page.

Pyrrhus (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2019 (EST)

Awesome! It's very satisfying to get this stuff set up. Thanks for all your work on it; it's stuff I noticed missing but felt kinda daunted to get into on my own! Many hands do make lighter work! Canele (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2019 (EST)

Very true about many hands making lighter work. Plus, it's easy for me to think about questions a new user would have since I'm a new user. Once you're proficient in something, it's harder to remember what you went through in the beginning...

Pyrrhus (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2019 (EST)

Signing comments, etc.

Hey Pyrrhus, so much for my wikibreak, ha. I see the commenting format is being revamped--is there a place on-wiki that I can catch up on discussion of that? I have a couple thoughts (re: maybe adding a reminder on each talk page to sign comments; some available templates for use when someone forgets 1, 2, etc.) but realize I'm probably behind so wanted to catch up to make sure I wasn't make duplicative proposals! Thanks! Canele (talk) 14:44, June 27, 2019 (EDT)

Hi Canele! There hasn’t been much discussion on the transition, so you haven’t missed much. Basically, we’re moving towards the StructuredDiscussions format which I believe is used on Wikipedia. You can play around with StructuredDiscussions on this test page: https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project_talk:Sandbox/Flow_test

The benefit of the new format is that it is more intuitive, and doesn’t require users to learn wikitext. The downside is that existing talk page content will be archived and the new talk page will include a link to the archived talk page. We will need to manually copy over some critical talk page content from the archived page to the new talk pages. We will also need to educate people to check the archived page before starting a new topic on the new talk page. But the improved user experience should be more than worth it in the long run. If you have suggestions, this page is as good as any to discuss them!

I totally understand about your wikibreak! I’m supposed to be on a wikibreak myself right now, but I haven’t been very successful at it! I’m considering an every-other-week-wikibreak, which would give me a full 7 days to clear my mind, but I won’t be too far behind when I get back...

Cheers! Pyrrhus (talk) 16:03, June 27, 2019 (EDT)

Thanks for the update Pyrrhus (especially if you too are trying to take a break!) That's interesting to hear, I'll have to play around with that format--in fact it's not what's used on Wikipedia ("On English Wikipedia, Commons, and Meta it has been disabled based on community decisions.") Instead Wikipedia uses the format MEpedia currently has, plus a very cool gadget called Reply-link (it adds a "reply" button after every comment, so in one click, you get a window for a new comment that's already properly threaded and auto-signed, and offers you an option to ping the person you're replying to, all taken care of for you.) But just as Bradv says there, when Reply-link was introduced, it did change my life, ha ha, so I can absolutely see the potential and value in making discussions more intuitive. And as the site grows, archiving old discussions and linking to them on the current talk page is something we'll have to do eventually, so that's not the worst thing (although I suppose maybe it's more complicated when converting to this totally different format.) In any case I appreciate all your work on making MEpedia as accessible as possible.

And one week on, one week off is a great idea, thanks for mentioning it! When I'm ready to be back more regularly, I might try that too. Canele (talk) 17:10, June 27, 2019 (EDT)